Pentax Q Hands-on Preview

The Pentax Q is the smallest interchangeable lens camera on the market. And, just like the company's famously diminutive Auto 110 SLR from the late 70's, it achieves this by embracing a smaller format than its peers. Being built around a 1/2.3" sensor, the Q is a fraction of the size of even the smallest existing mirrorless cameras and is the first really pocketable model (though the protruding lens still means that'll have to be the pocket of your jacket, rather than your shirt or trousers).

To make clear what the rather opaque 1/2.3" figure actually means, it equates to a surface area of around 28mm2. This is around 1/8th the size of the sensor used in Micro Four Thirds cameras and 1/13th the size of the the APS-C format sensor in Sony's NEX. The advantage of this is that the lenses for the Q mount can be made a lot smaller than those for other systems, but the downside is that the image quality is more likely to resemble that of a compact camera than a DSLR.

You can glean a lot about Pentax's approach to the Q from the lenses it has announced: a 47mm equivalent F1.9 prime lens for the enthusiasts but accompanied with a healthy dose of fun in the form of two fixed focal length 'toy' lenses (a wide-angle and a telephoto version, both sub-$100). On the fun side of things there will also be a fisheye lens or, at the more serious end, a 28-83mm equivalent standard zoom with a built-in shutter, allowing flash sync at any shutter speed.

Coupled with the 47mm equiv. prime or the standard zoom the Q, with its sturdy magnesium-alloy build, appears to be offering an alternative take on the photographers' compacts such as the Canon G12, Olympus XZ-1 and even the Ricoh GRD. However, the fact that it can take different lenses means that in a matter of seconds it can be converted into a fun little camera that should still offer a more satisfying shooting experience than a mobile phone and image processing app.

And the Q is no toy camera, despite its modest sensor size it boasts a magnesium alloy body with rubber front coating, a 460,000 dot LCD on the rear and raw output in the DNG format. Interestingly, Pentax bucks the recent trend of trying to attract point-and-shoot users by removing those intimidating buttons with all those mysterious symbols on them, and includes plenty of external controls.

Pentax Q key specifications:

12.4MP back-illuminated CMOS sensor (1/2.3" size - 6.17 x 4.55 mm)

Q-mount interchangeable lens mount

12-bit DNG raw file option

3" 460,000 dot LCD

Sensor-shift image stabilization and dust-removal

1080p30 HD movie recording in H.264 format

5 frame-per-second continuous shooting capability

Quick-dial control giving access to four image settings

In-camera HDR option blends three images

Built-in flash

Flash hot shoe (also used for mounting optional viewfinder)

Front and rear IR remote sensors

Compared to the Sony NEX-C3

The Q's well-proportioned design makes it a little hard to work out how large it is until you see it in comparison to another camera. The sensor is around 1/13th the size of that in the NEX-C3 but does means it's the closest a mirrorless camera has yet come to being truly pocketable.

Placing the Q side-by-side with the NEX helps give some idea of how small it is, but taking the lens off also reveals how small its sensor is. The Pentax doesn't trigger quite the same wonder about how the engineers managed to fit so much into so little space - suggesting that there's a minimum size a camera can currently be, regardless of sensor size.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2011 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Comments

Let's say the sensor is equivelant to an micro 4/3. The boring part is you can't really play with DOF, at least I can do that with my micro 4/3. I don't know one photographer who will buy this, and I've talked to 30+ of them, 2 of which are Pentax fan boys. Only considerations are new Olympus E-PL3 or E-P3 line up, Canon G11/G12, or the lenses for my iPhone, LOL. For the camera with all the lenses, I wouldn't part with $300 for it all. I'd rather blow money paying Canadian retail for a battery grip (which will never happen by the way).

As an owner of multiple 4/3rds bodies I have listened to more than my share of crap over the size of my image sensor. So forgive me if I LOL over people defending a new lens mount and $800 camera that for some crazy reason features an image sensor 1/8th the size of the one in my Olympus.

Unless Pentax has managed to achieve a several order of magnitude breakthrough in image sensor technology, it is an absolute 100% GIVEN that the high ISO performance of this camera is going to suck hard.

actually, nanoc, it depends - with regards of resolution, sensor technology have already far surpassed human eye. The same for sensitivity. Only dynamic range of human eye is still not reachable, and will not be reachable until we do not change 24bit RGB color representation.

Unfortunately, sensor technology hasn’t come anywhere near replicating human eye’s IQ. So, right now, using the current technology, you would be lying if you said that bigger isn’t better. Regarding the fun factor I, for one, don’t see what the fun in having many expensive toy lenses to switch is. Actually, switching lenses is one of the things that ruin the fun of photography or, at least, distracts from the true purpose of a photographer, which is not paying attention to the equipment or how to use it, but paying attention to the picture they want to capture. If the goal is fun and ultimate portability, why didn’t pentax just produce an excellent compact camera, instead of an interchangeable lens camera?

Unfortunately, sensor technology hasn’t come anywhere near replicating human eye’s IQ. So, right now, using the current technology, you would be lying if you said that bigger isn’t better. Regarding the fun factor I, for one, don’t see what the fun in having many expensive toy lenses to switch is. Actually, switching lenses is one of the things that ruin the fun of photography or, at least, distracts from the true purpose of a photographer, which is not paying attention to the equipment or how to use it, but paying attention to the picture they want to capture. If the goal is fun and ultimate portability, why didn’t pentax just produce an excellent compact camera, instead of an interchangeable lens camera?

And a zoom doesn't distract? Changing all those focal lengths without paying attention to what it does to perspective? Most good fine art photographers I know agree that primes are one of the way to focus more on photography, not less. You start getting a very exact idea of what the lens does allowing you to pre-visualize more.

That said nothing wrong with zooms per se but if you talk about avoiding distractions, having a zoom on a camera is not a start.

Equally important is the camera ergonomics/interface. I can tell you right now the Q has better interface an ergonomics than an LX5, Nikon J1, Olympus XZ-1, and dare I say it, Fuji X10 (though the X10 is not bad). Yes, i have handled all of those. Every single one of them.

The size of optical sensor in your eyes is much smaller than many small sensors, yet it delivers a benchmark image quality, better than one achieved with the largest sensor on the market. Today's 'tiny' sensors (what is "tiny" anyway? are our optical nerves tiny too?) are delivering better image quality than several years old big size sensors and they are evolving much faster too. Perhaps people will finally get (or not?) that sensor size is not a deciding factor for image quality, because technology sorts that out quickly. A good lens is the most important and is a constant for good photography. Nevertheless, Pentax Q is made for enjoyment, ease of use, creativity, ultimate portability and fun on the go. We've missed that terribly in digital photography, which has become increasingly 'serious' and boring. This is a breath of fresh air.

Those who are quick to pass judgment based solely on sensor size, without any hard proof of actual IQ or handling of the Q are those who enjoy the pixel peeping "dark side" of photography.

I think odds are good that PENTAX was not thinking of you when producing this camera. So please continue posting your lame duck, pixel perfect shots of bricks and flowers.

The Q looks like it could be fun and isn't that what photography is supposed to be when you're not making a living from it? Granted the $800 price tag is a bit to swallow right now, but I applaud the bold move by PENTAX.

"The Q looks like it could be fun..." 800 bucks worth of "fun"? Really?? And the lenses designed for the Q right now are toys, retailing for 80-120 bucks U.S. . The lens shipped w/ the Q is a " "let's cut the baby in half"-type lens because we can make it cheap even though it's nowhere near a wide angle or telephoto" kind of lens choice @ a 47mm equivalence. Mating an ordinary (by any other even "enthusiast's p&s" camera's standards) 24-80mm lens on the Q will only come later, and at an expense of what right now looks to be about 300 MORE bucks. The camera is going to include what's most likely a digital dof filter on it in order to give a fake "bokeh" effect to the pictures taken w/ it. Small sensor+cheap(and at the same time overpriced) lenses + comparably huge initial outlay of cash still = "FUN"??? Umm, no, not really.

Dear BBsLX5, I have quite a collection of lenses for my APSC DSLR. And when I am going out shooting for fun, which do I carry? Recently only the 35 mm f/2. This is actually a 53 mm equivalent. I certainly could live with the 47 mm :-). My only wish would be to have a camera that is lighter but operates like my DSLR. Maybe the Q will deliver. I agree with eadrian, just can not write as nicely as he can. Sometimes when you go out, you want to have fun with the camera. For my shooting style the Q offers a great promise. Using it will show if it can deliver. Pentax needs to be commended to deliver us as complete different animal of camera. Isn't that great? More choice for us photographers? Why berate a company giving you more choice? Germans would say, you are cutting into your own flesh. And how can you make a judgement this camera is no FUN??? Fun is an emotional response in real life. You would actually need to use the Q to be able to comment if is fun for you or not.

Yes, by that account you can never pass any judgment. So, OK camera does not have DOF, half decent high ISO, DR to speak of, and costs as much as cameras that do - who said there is not a photographer who will find it amusing? Doesn't the camera look fun? Shouldn't we at least applaud Pentax for providing new entry in DPreview news column? Answer is 'yes' to all of those, but why should that preclude from expressing their opening about the useless camera?

Sensor size is the most fundamental limiting factor in photography. Anyone who thinks that 1/2.5" sensor vs APS-C is a distinctions important only to pixel-peepers, clearly does not know too much about photography.

If you are a pentax fan-boy great, buy the camera. The dark side is Nikon not pixel peepers. Surely you can see this camera does not have much bang for the buck. And if you decide to come over to the Dark side that's OK too.

Good luck,

Fred

PS: Don't cameras with sensors that small normally retail for under 200 bucks?

I think people here miss that the Q is punching above its weight. The tiny sensor it has does actually better than the LX5 current sensor, as the ISO goes up. The LX5 I would say does better at low ISO, but those saying "the ISO is bad/horrible/whatever" should say the same then of the LX5, Olympus XZ-1.

Let's face it - lenses on the NEX are too big or would be if they made a more usable pancake of 35mm+ (equiv). Olympus/Panasonic pancake lens size is OK but the E-Px body is too big and the GFx has no IS in body.

So, the logical step is for an in-between sized sensor, perhaps 3/4 to 1 inch but, wait a minute, 1/1.7" sensors are close to that size and there are a few of those around. Imagine an LX-5 with interchangable lenses or, even smaller, a Canon S95 with same. The Pentax may turn out to be a 'fun' camera but how much do you want to pay for such fun?

My 2 cents. Bought a Oly XZ-1 + EV-2 recently so I'm not in the market for another expensive compact camera. I think the camera earns the Q name. It has a unique look, sure it has a smaller sensor then the XZ-1 then again it is smaller and you can change the lenses. It's interesting, the review's testing will no doubt have several negative mentions plus a few surprises. The person that buys this camera will no doubt take those under consideration. I accepted several with the XZ-1, such is life. It's a brave move by Pentax to create a whole new lens mount standard. Will definitely get press for been the first(last?) with this mount. BTW the Q was some sort of stealth marketing campaign during Photokina 2010?

The key thing will be the camera's low light performance. I see it as a potential competitor for the G12/S95 range. If the image quality can match, AND it has better lenses (fast, with good optics) it could be an interesting camera.

Note that I may be one of the few who remembers the Pentax compact 110-film SLR. Yes, it was limited by the image quality from the 110 film (probably about the size of the sensor in this camera!), but the control options and lens options made it very interesting for somethat that small.

Dear Jeff, thanks for reminding us on the Pentax 110. I just looked it up. Cute little thing. This gives me even more hope that Pentax knows what they are doing :-)Dear AnHund, when comparing sizes, you forgot to put the time line into your equation. The 110 was introduced in 1978. At that time resolution of 35 mm film was not has high as it is now. I made tests in 2002 and concluded 35 mm FF was about 12 Mega Pixel. From feeling I would say the pictures I shot in late seventies have about 1/3 resolution that they had in 2002. That makes it 4 MP in late seventies. FF is 860 mm2, you said 110 is 221 mm2, that makes 110 to be the size of 1/4 FF, that leaves it to be 1MP at the time. 1 MP is about the resolution of a 15" laptop, the maximum size most people look at their pictures. They were successful with that ( much | little) image quality then. So they might be more successful with the Q now as it has much better IQ than the 110. Or maybe IQ is not so relevant here ?

Most of such cameras have only one lens, micro 4/3 is not a professional thing either, I really do not want to carry large equipment if going out with my family - usually shooting with mobile phone even, just composition and journalism matters here. To get HQ images it takes anyway much of devotion and equipment and time time... I tried sony nex and did not liked the menu system at all. I would like to try the Q at least and if IQ is similar or better to Nokia N8, it is wonderful companion and also in a more serious camera bag just for documenting and why not shooting invisibly.

my experience is that any 12 MP sensor can out-resolve almost any lens given enough light. Prime lenses always have been significantly better than standard zooms. When I am going out, I do not bring all my primes, but only one or two matching the trip. I can easily see it happen that a Nex5 combines with a standard zoom will be bagged by the Q with a prime in terms of IQ. If you have enough light, sensor size is almost irrelevant, lens quality then becomes the deciding factor. I am also certain that a Nex5 will bag the Q when you shoot at candle light, no matter the lens :-)

After all the negative comments, is it only me who actually finds the white Q ellegant ?I am not buing Q, but I guess the potential buyer for this camera is one that would not bother with a sensor size, but simply like the looks of it. And price of pentax always go down after while, easily 30% so then it would be on par with the better compacts like LX or XZ

Sensor size is important as it generally dictates what kind of image quality you can get.

1/2.3" sensors don't have a very good track record, it's possible Pentax has made some major breakthroughs but if not then why spend $800 on a camera that takes similar images to a $100 camera?

Even if they are going for small as possible there are bigger sensor sizes they could use (1/1.6" comes to mind, even 2/3" or 1") that would improve the high iso and depth of field characteristics without increasing the size by that much.

Given the technical life of cameras why must all but the cheapest consumer cameras be made of unobtainium? This camera might be much more marketable with a plastic body (which can be functionally superior) and a few less features. Camera and fast prime at $300-400 would put it in the range of a pretty cool toy, which it seems to be anyway.

Pentax be bold by putting feces in a box and charging $800 for it... doesn't mean it's a good business move. If you want a camera you can fit in your pocket w/o arousing suspicion there are many great small P&Ss. If your priority is IQ you won't be able to fit it in your pocket. This thing married the IQ of a pocket camera with the expense of a DSLR. What was the point?

Want to know what else is disgustingly boring Camancha? Getting lots of noisy, blurred photos under tough circumstances with a small sensor camera. I think I'll keep my "boring" Canon which cost me less than this 'Q' would only it takes much better photos nearly every time. Is it about the camera, or the photos?

My first dslr is the k-x, and while I love it and the way Pentax handles in general, if this is the way research and development is heading then I'm jumping ship. Out of all the things they need to improve on to stay competitive -- better flashguns, more modern zoom lenses, focus and metering systems -- they decide to make this failure Q mount (which by the way stands for Queen, and K for King) for a tiny sensor. They should have followed Sony's A and E mount systems.

Even IF they succeed in good image quality (a big IF), you still lose bokeh capability AND collapsible zoom lenses. Its like the worst of both worlds! I'm so disappointed. Please someone give me some hope.

Hoya's most 'successful' move since buying Pentax has been the multi-colored bodies on its entry level DSLR's... (a truly innovative design) Those cameras were never meant for the DPR gang, and neither is this one.

I cant believe they spent a nickel developing this idea.... As they had already failed at this with the 110 film SLR years ago. But like the fuchsia KX and matching lenses, this little guy was not designed for me. Sadly the target audience, soccer moms and hipsters with too much money are already hooked on their Iphones and apps, so the timing of this release is a couple of years late.

i was about to get the lx5 soon, but think will hold & see how this Q grows.price will go down below $500, lens line will grow, hope there'll be more fixed strong lenses (forget the zooms), a 28mm prime f/2.8 perhaps, with its own ovf :)then let's see the image quality, if at least match g12 or lx5.... :Dit's kind of odd, but i rather hv some good feelings about this Q

The look grows on you, Leica..ish. If it had Leica on the tag everyone would be marveling at the miniature brilliance and style of this new system. Let's wait and see the image quality before we burn Pentax at stake. This may be a winner lets wait and see.

Neither will Olympus and Sony, what kind of a dimm wit would try to sell a 2/3 sensor camera for $800. It is a niche market product for sure...no likely to generate a waiting list like the x100 or the Gh2

They way I see it, is that Qwntm' s checklist will only be complete once someone is able to get close-to current APS-C/micro-four-thirds performance on 1/2.3" sensor size. Sensor quality will improve, and at some stage P&S cameras will be capable of good performance. Pentax can then capitalize on experience gained here to maintain this niche.

I think it a bold move from Pentax, but will bear fruit only on one very major condition: PRICE! The modern tendency is to make these "mirrorless" cameras too expensive. In South Africa very few people buy them , and their second hand value tends to be on the low side. This large-sensor mirrorless sector is thus already a definite FAIL here. If Pentax can do this body for sub-$400, BUT also add a plastic body (similar to entry level DSLR material) for say $200 - $250, they should be set to go somewhere! This last point is critical, as I think they did it wrong way round! If they can't, this niche-attempt will probably end up an epic FAIL!

Original thinking indeed. The lenses will be inexpensive AND well into production by the time the sequels to this are established.

It may be just a matter of time until a boffin develops a double sensor with twice or even four times the light gathering ablity of the current smallest.

It reminds me of a prof photog I know who long ago was given a Pentax 110 as a sort of joke/mantelpiece ornament - he ended up using it exclusively (once you get used to the IQ, you begin to love the IQ)

Why would anybody want this versus an XZ1 or s95 is beyond me. This "thing" does not have any market potential at all. To start with, the lenses are not collapsible so they are protruding too much which makes this thing the same size as MFT. Lens mount is too big simply, photos will be too noisy, lens options too limited, the whole thing is way overpriced. I just can't see one single advantage over anything that we have currently already on the market.

"Though we had received permission in advance to shoot and post a small set of our laboratory sample shots reduced to half-size, we received notice after publication that Pentax wanted the images removed."

first ...this hint Q camera..it is a throw back to a candid camera. The referance to James Bond. I would never purchase a camera made of plastic or called a Rebel ! This is a secondary camera or to be used when we can not use a SLR due to size. The price is high, lets see what happens.....